JOHN WILLIAM PAYTON, JR., HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIE ANNE EAST PAYTON, WIFE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a contempt order and purge amount because the trial court's calculation of arrearage was based partly on findings that lacked competent, substantial evidence in the prior appeal, requiring recalculation on remand.
A contempt order imposing a purge amount and arrearage must be reversed when the arrearage calculation relies on findings that were remanded in a prior appeal for lack of competent, substantial evidence.
[1] A contempt order imposing purge and arrearage amounts must be reversed when the arrearage calculation is based in part on findings that were remanded in a prior appeal fo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Payton was found in contempt and ordered to pay a $2,000 purge amount, continue paying $200 toward a $5,110.09 arrearage, pay $500 in attorney's …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Record Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
John W. Payton, Jr., appeals an order finding him in contempt, but which suspended enforcement conditioned upon his payment of a purge amount of $2,000. The order also required him to continue to pay $200 towards a new total arrearage amount due of $5,110.09.1 The trial court also directed Mr. Payton to pay $500 toward his former wife’s attorney’s fees and to provide reimbursement of $256 for his half of a medical bill. He contests the total new arrearage amount of $5,119.09 because it is based, in part, on an amount this Court could not determine was based on competent, substantial record evidence in Payton v. Payton, 109 So.3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Payton I), which issued forty-five days before issuance of the contempt order. In Payton I, the panel remanded the matter and directed that more specific findings be entered, which has not yet been done. As such, we find merit in Mr. Payton’s argument and reverse the Order on Motion for Contempt. On remand, the trial court shall recalculate the amount of new arrearage and purge, as necessary, after the trial court ensures compliance with this Court’s mandate in Payton I. We vacate the award of attorneys’ fees, leaving it to the trial court to make a de novo determination of entitlement on remand.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Payton v. Payton, 148 So. 3d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…anded. Payton v. Payton, 109 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Payton I). Because the first order of contempt was premised on the judgment of dissolution, reversed in part in Payton I, this court reversed the first order of contempt. Payton v. Payton, 120 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Payton II). In the second order of contempt, the trial court again ordered Mr. Payton to pay child support as required by the judgment of dissolution, and to pay as well $200 per month towards the arrearage, directly to the form…
Authorities Cited
- Payton v. Payton, 109 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)